X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
X-SpamCatcher-Score:  50 [XX]
 (67%)	URL: contains host with port number
 (33%)	URL: contains 2 subdomains
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:03:04 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1916427@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <mjrav@comcast.net>
Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.192.83] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7)
  with ESMTP id 1916165 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:26:58 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.192.83; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net
Received: from mjr (c-24-91-151-131.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[24.91.151.131])
          by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP
          id <20070312092610m13007coqie>; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:26:10 +0000
X-Original-Message-ID: <002501c76490$abb7b4c0$83975b18@mjr>
From: "Mark Ravinski" <mjrav@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1915918@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: enough runway"
X-Original-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:24:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896

Guys,
It takes MORE runway to do a touch and go than to full stop.
I suggest that if anyone wants to experiment with any such techniques they
do it on plenty of runway.
I have flown into runways as short as 1800 ft with trees at both ends.  The
minimum runway I need to land, reconfigure flaps, add power and go is more
like 3000 ft.

Also, I think a drag chute would be impractical.  By the time you realized
you need it, your speed would be low enough that it wouldn't do much good.
They are for planes that land at 175 kts.

Mark Ravinski
N360KB  1399 hrs


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Kennedy" <bill_kennedy_3@hotmail.com>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:37 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: enough runway"


> I agree with Jeff. I also think a touch and go should be second nature if
> you're at all concerned about getting your plane stopped in the available
> runway.
>
> Bill Kennedy
> N42BK
>
>
> >From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com
> >Reply-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
> >To: lml@lancaironline.net
> >Subject: [LML] Re: enough runway"
> >Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:37:21 -0400
> >
> >If you think you need a drag chute for the occasional "aw shit the runway
> >is
> >too dang short" instances then IMHO your preflight planning is flawed.
Like
> >I
> >  said before, take the distance you can get the aircraft stopped in
(from
> >a
> >50'  height) and then double that and that is your landing distance
> >requirement. 50%  of all GA accidnts are takeoff and landing accidents.
> >Being too
> >optimistic on  landing distance required is not a good thing.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Jeff Edwards
> >LIVP N619SJ
> ><BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers
free
> >email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at
> >http://www.aol.com.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
> simple tips.
>
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>